4 ms·

> Driven by worries among U.S. lawmakers that China could access data on Americans or spy on them with the app, There's an arguable national security angle. P

by neilv 2y ago

> Driven by worries among U.S. lawmakers that China could access data on Americans or spy on them with the app, There's an arguable national security angle. Potential surveillance, and, especially, manipulation and dumbing-down. Earlier, I also heard complaints about TikTok implications for individual health. Which, when implying US Big Tech social media as an acceptable alternative, sounds like an abusive parent: "If anyone's going to beat up my kids, it'll be me!" Sounds like US Big Tech might've decided on the complaint angle of "some other country could spy on people" -- since all the other valid complaints about TikTok, including intimate surveillance, also apply to TikTok's counterpart US Big Tech products. Outlaw the irresponsible behaviors, not the competition.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> since all the other valid complaints about TikTok, including intimate surveillance, also apply to TikTok's counterpart US Big Tech products Big Tech aren’t Chinese. There is no public coalition civically engaged against Big Tech’s surveillance. There is a solid bloc concerned about China. If you want to regulate surveillance capitalism—and I do—convince people to care about the issue (and call their electeds and vote).
- dylan604 2y ago
  > If you want to regulate surveillance capitalism—and I do—convince people to care about the issue (and call their electeds and vote). But the people being targeted by the platform are all watching videos telling them how their votes don't count, the deep state, and other things to encourage people to believe the system does not work. It is the absolute ultimate anti-democratic tool I have ever seen.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > the people being targeted by the platform are all watching videos telling them how their votes don't count, the deep state, and other things to encourage people to believe the system does not work Sure, but they have the right to self select out of the civic process (as well as to hear and repeat such things). I wouldn’t support this bill if TikTok.com were going to be blocked; the speech still has a right to the light of day.
    - dylan604 2y ago
      TIL tiktok.com was a thing. I had assumed it was app only. <shrug>
    - falcolas 2y ago
      > I wouldn’t support this bill if TikTok.com were going to be blocked Do we have anything other than "it wasn't explicitly called out in the bill" to back this up? There are a lot of catchall clauses built into the bill which could easily cover the website as well.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > Do we have anything other than "it wasn't explicitly called out in the bill" to back this up The specificity of the enforcement language, the First Amendment, how Trump’s attempts floundered, et cetera. The closest thing that could happen is the domain is seized and it winds up behind TikTok.cn.
        falcolas 2y ago
        > The specificity of the enforcement language, the First Amendment, how Trump’s attempts floundered, et cetera All of which can be argued for the app as well. Frankly, I'd want something a bit more specific. Especially since the government has used vague laws and language to quite effectively nuke specific websites before. The thing that could happen is TikTok being findable only at 205.251.194.210 or its ipv6 equivalent.
  - phendrenad2 2y ago
    Would you support regulating or banning a conspiracy theory website, hosted in AWS US East 2?
    - dylan604 2y ago
      I don't like the content, but I would NOT support banning it. To me, there are things that a fun to play what if with for entertainment purposes and hanging out while puff-puff-passing, but only if there's a strong link to reality with the individual reading it. For those without that link and they conspiracy seems tangible that they accept that as their reality it is no longer entertainment. With the dumbing down of critical thinking in education, things that get pushed on the interwebs become much more accepted as normal instead of being able to say maybe someone is pushing an agenda instead. The ability of someone being a shill and not know it is just a sad state of affairs.
      - phendrenad2 2y ago
        So you'd support censorship if enough people took it seriously. It's a good thing the government has never lied and said something was a conspiracy theory when it was actually true. What was that guy's name? Snedword Owden?
dylan604 2y ago
> Potential surveillance, and, especially, manipulation and dumbing-down. I'm not a TikTok user, but over the long weekend was around people that clearly are. The things they discussed we so outlandish that I was confused on where they got their information. Of course it was a lot of TikTok and YouTube being used as sources. Personally, I'm much less concerned by any potential surveillance tool. However, the especially part of your sentence is much more worrying to me. > Outlaw the irresponsible behaviors, By this do you mean people posting utter nonsense? At that point, you verge on censorship. I recognize that free speech includes speech I don't like, but holy shite batman!, I've never seen such an effective tool for the crazies to find not just a voice with a megaphone but a 30,000w sound system where ever they go. Oh, and they are monetarily rewarded for behaving that way. So other than slippery slope reasons, I couldn't careless if TikTok were to no longer exist. The net negative of it existing is not worth it in my opinion.
- whimsicalism 2y ago
  would be better if you provided maybe a single example of the outlandish things discussed did people not believe crazy things in the mid-20th century? i remember that polling suggests that a third of people believe they have literally spoken with the dead
  - dylan604 2y ago
    Just this weekend, I was told that we were in WWIII, but in secret. Of course there's all of the big lie nonsense. There's still talk of which ever Kennedy coming back. Why should I be the one that as to point out specific issues with content being pushed. Are you denying that bullshit is being spread? > did people not believe crazy things in the mid-20th century? Why is that even a question? Of course the crazy was around. It was just much more difficult to spread it around. You had 'zines that were available. You had AM and shortwave radio programs. Just by telling someone you listened to AM/shortwave content already set people in the correct frame of mind of where the information was obtained. In modern times, it's everywhere on the socials. It just so happens the time the socials were gaining usage with people that specifically do not know critical thinking nor have been taught the ways to investigate sources. The internet as been an equalizer for everyone doing anything. As much as it has done for retail, it has also been huge for not just the conspiracy theory sites but propaganda from anyone including foreign actors.
throwitaway222 2y ago
The other angle is war. Modern war is not necessarily bombing campaigns (even if we have 2 going on now). It's control of other countries citizens, even if through their own words. For example if representational content of people falling in love with Osama Bin Laden is a total of 3 hours of content, and there are a billion hours of guitar playing good ole American BBQ content, TikTok can show the 3 Bid Laden hours to most people and 0.0000005% of the American BBQ content. War through means we haven't figured out yet.
- whimsicalism 2y ago
  i never voted to be at war with China, i think most of this is fearmongering, and we managed to survive the entire cold war without banning foreign ownership of media outlets.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > we managed to survive the entire cold war without banning foreign ownership of media outlets Because we did it in 1934 [1]. There were no Soviet TV channels. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/310 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/310
    - linearrust 2y ago
      You aren't american. It's been established many times here by many people. What 'we' are you referring to?
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        We disagree on Taiwan’s independence [1]. I genuinely don’t care about where you’re from or your thoughts about me. Like, sure, I’m a sentient cheetah with an igloo on Antarctica. But I am curious about your thoughts. If you’re open to engaging on that level, I’m actually curious. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40443429 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40443429
ZoomerCretin 2y ago
The "national security" argument was BS in 2018, and it's BS now. The only difference is now it's a real thorn in the side of the establishment in the US, because it's the only source of news and videos of Gaza that is not actively censored in the United States. We have Russia Today in the US. We have CGTN. Both are okay because their viewership isn't sufficient to challenge the pro-Israeli propaganda put out by the MSM. Even Mitt Romney admitted a lot of the pressure to ban TikTok came from the pro-Israel lobbyists: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/05/tiktok-ban-china-israel-palestine-mitt-romney.html https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/05/tiktok-ban-china...
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > We have Russia Today in the US. We have CGTN. We’ll still have TikTok.com even if Bytedance refuses to sell.
  - ZoomerCretin 2y ago
    And what's the next sentence you didn't quote?
  - somenameforme 2y ago
    Not necessarily. The bill [1] very much leaves room for the creation of the 'Great Firewall of America.' Two of the top things it prohibits are: --- (A) Providing services to distribute, maintain, or update such foreign adversary controlled application (including any source code of such application) by means of a marketplace (including an online mobile application store) through which users within the land or maritime borders of the United States may access, maintain, or update such application. (B) Providing internet hosting services to enable the distribution, maintenance, or updating of such foreign adversary controlled application for users within the land or maritime borders of the United States. --- That is strongly suggestive of the creation of a national firewall, or a defacto national firewall where internet service providers have to abide a Federal censorship list or face legal consequences. This is one of the many things, like the Patriot Act, that people are going to look back in a decade wondering why they ever thought this was a good idea. Well actually they'll probably just convince themselves that they never supported it - much easier. [1] - https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7521/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7521...

by neilv 2y ago

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> since all the other valid complaints about TikTok, including intimate surveillance, also apply to TikTok's counterpart US Big Tech products Big Tech aren’t Chinese. There is no public coalition civically engaged against Big Tech’s surveillance. There is a solid bloc concerned about China. If you want to regulate surveillance capitalism—and I do—convince people to care about the issue (and call their electeds and vote).

dylan604 2y ago
> If you want to regulate surveillance capitalism—and I do—convince people to care about the issue (and call their electeds and vote). But the people being targeted by the platform are all watching videos telling them how their votes don't count, the deep state, and other things to encourage people to believe the system does not work. It is the absolute ultimate anti-democratic tool I have ever seen.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > the people being targeted by the platform are all watching videos telling them how their votes don't count, the deep state, and other things to encourage people to believe the system does not work Sure, but they have the right to self select out of the civic process (as well as to hear and repeat such things). I wouldn’t support this bill if TikTok.com were going to be blocked; the speech still has a right to the light of day.
  - dylan604 2y ago
    TIL tiktok.com was a thing. I had assumed it was app only. <shrug>
  - falcolas 2y ago
    > I wouldn’t support this bill if TikTok.com were going to be blocked Do we have anything other than "it wasn't explicitly called out in the bill" to back this up? There are a lot of catchall clauses built into the bill which could easily cover the website as well.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > Do we have anything other than "it wasn't explicitly called out in the bill" to back this up The specificity of the enforcement language, the First Amendment, how Trump’s attempts floundered, et cetera. The closest thing that could happen is the domain is seized and it winds up behind TikTok.cn.
      - falcolas 2y ago
        > The specificity of the enforcement language, the First Amendment, how Trump’s attempts floundered, et cetera All of which can be argued for the app as well. Frankly, I'd want something a bit more specific. Especially since the government has used vague laws and language to quite effectively nuke specific websites before. The thing that could happen is TikTok being findable only at 205.251.194.210 or its ipv6 equivalent.
- phendrenad2 2y ago
  Would you support regulating or banning a conspiracy theory website, hosted in AWS US East 2?
  - dylan604 2y ago
    I don't like the content, but I would NOT support banning it. To me, there are things that a fun to play what if with for entertainment purposes and hanging out while puff-puff-passing, but only if there's a strong link to reality with the individual reading it. For those without that link and they conspiracy seems tangible that they accept that as their reality it is no longer entertainment. With the dumbing down of critical thinking in education, things that get pushed on the interwebs become much more accepted as normal instead of being able to say maybe someone is pushing an agenda instead. The ability of someone being a shill and not know it is just a sad state of affairs.
    - phendrenad2 2y ago
      So you'd support censorship if enough people took it seriously. It's a good thing the government has never lied and said something was a conspiracy theory when it was actually true. What was that guy's name? Snedword Owden?

dylan604 2y ago

> Potential surveillance, and, especially, manipulation and dumbing-down. I'm not a TikTok user, but over the long weekend was around people that clearly are. The things they discussed we so outlandish that I was confused on where they got their information. Of course it was a lot of TikTok and YouTube being used as sources. Personally, I'm much less concerned by any potential surveillance tool. However, the especially part of your sentence is much more worrying to me. > Outlaw the irresponsible behaviors, By this do you mean people posting utter nonsense? At that point, you verge on censorship. I recognize that free speech includes speech I don't like, but holy shite batman!, I've never seen such an effective tool for the crazies to find not just a voice with a megaphone but a 30,000w sound system where ever they go. Oh, and they are monetarily rewarded for behaving that way. So other than slippery slope reasons, I couldn't careless if TikTok were to no longer exist. The net negative of it existing is not worth it in my opinion.

whimsicalism 2y ago
would be better if you provided maybe a single example of the outlandish things discussed did people not believe crazy things in the mid-20th century? i remember that polling suggests that a third of people believe they have literally spoken with the dead
- dylan604 2y ago
  Just this weekend, I was told that we were in WWIII, but in secret. Of course there's all of the big lie nonsense. There's still talk of which ever Kennedy coming back. Why should I be the one that as to point out specific issues with content being pushed. Are you denying that bullshit is being spread? > did people not believe crazy things in the mid-20th century? Why is that even a question? Of course the crazy was around. It was just much more difficult to spread it around. You had 'zines that were available. You had AM and shortwave radio programs. Just by telling someone you listened to AM/shortwave content already set people in the correct frame of mind of where the information was obtained. In modern times, it's everywhere on the socials. It just so happens the time the socials were gaining usage with people that specifically do not know critical thinking nor have been taught the ways to investigate sources. The internet as been an equalizer for everyone doing anything. As much as it has done for retail, it has also been huge for not just the conspiracy theory sites but propaganda from anyone including foreign actors.

throwitaway222 2y ago

The other angle is war. Modern war is not necessarily bombing campaigns (even if we have 2 going on now). It's control of other countries citizens, even if through their own words. For example if representational content of people falling in love with Osama Bin Laden is a total of 3 hours of content, and there are a billion hours of guitar playing good ole American BBQ content, TikTok can show the 3 Bid Laden hours to most people and 0.0000005% of the American BBQ content. War through means we haven't figured out yet.

whimsicalism 2y ago
i never voted to be at war with China, i think most of this is fearmongering, and we managed to survive the entire cold war without banning foreign ownership of media outlets.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > we managed to survive the entire cold war without banning foreign ownership of media outlets Because we did it in 1934 [1]. There were no Soviet TV channels. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/310 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/310
  - linearrust 2y ago
    You aren't american. It's been established many times here by many people. What 'we' are you referring to?
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      We disagree on Taiwan’s independence [1]. I genuinely don’t care about where you’re from or your thoughts about me. Like, sure, I’m a sentient cheetah with an igloo on Antarctica. But I am curious about your thoughts. If you’re open to engaging on that level, I’m actually curious. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40443429 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40443429

ZoomerCretin 2y ago

The "national security" argument was BS in 2018, and it's BS now. The only difference is now it's a real thorn in the side of the establishment in the US, because it's the only source of news and videos of Gaza that is not actively censored in the United States. We have Russia Today in the US. We have CGTN. Both are okay because their viewership isn't sufficient to challenge the pro-Israeli propaganda put out by the MSM. Even Mitt Romney admitted a lot of the pressure to ban TikTok came from the pro-Israel lobbyists: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/05/tiktok-ban-china-israel-palestine-mitt-romney.html https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/05/tiktok-ban-china...

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> We have Russia Today in the US. We have CGTN. We’ll still have TikTok.com even if Bytedance refuses to sell.
- ZoomerCretin 2y ago
  And what's the next sentence you didn't quote?
- somenameforme 2y ago
  Not necessarily. The bill [1] very much leaves room for the creation of the 'Great Firewall of America.' Two of the top things it prohibits are: --- (A) Providing services to distribute, maintain, or update such foreign adversary controlled application (including any source code of such application) by means of a marketplace (including an online mobile application store) through which users within the land or maritime borders of the United States may access, maintain, or update such application. (B) Providing internet hosting services to enable the distribution, maintenance, or updating of such foreign adversary controlled application for users within the land or maritime borders of the United States. --- That is strongly suggestive of the creation of a national firewall, or a defacto national firewall where internet service providers have to abide a Federal censorship list or face legal consequences. This is one of the many things, like the Patriot Act, that people are going to look back in a decade wondering why they ever thought this was a good idea. Well actually they'll probably just convince themselves that they never supported it - much easier. [1] - https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7521/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7521...